Now this is not the end...

'Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.' Prime Minister Winston Churchill November 10th 1942

The Betrayal

Despite having said that she would not postpone the vote in the House of Commons on her proposed Brexit bill, Theresa May eventually accepted that the government would have been heavily defeated had a vote gone ahead on Tuesday 11th December. She therefore decided to postpone until early January and telephoned Juncker in a last-ditch attempt to get the EU leaders to throw her a lifeline. She should have known better: one can just imagine Barnier and Juncker sniggering as they filled the red and white lifebouy ring with lead, before throwing it over her head!

As anticipated, her initiative turned out as many thousands could have told her it would – she was sent packing after a prolonged bout of ritual humiliation. Even before her meeting, Emanuel Macron, the French President, had said: "One cannot reopen a legal agreement" - a sentiment supported by Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany, who agreed: "I do not see that we could change the agreement again" (Rayner and Crisp, 2018:1). Despite these clear warnings, May still went to Brussels, whereit was reported that she "… was humiliated once again by European Union leaders last night as her attempts to improve her Brexit deal were thrown back in her face" (Rayner and Crisp, 2018:1).Apart from the obvious (ie. that an agreement can be changed as many times as required as long as the relevant signatories are in agreement), the statements by Macron and Merkel serve to underline the EU's intransigence and unwillingness to compromise. Ask yourself why they refuse to change the deal? Could it be that, unwittingly or otherwise, Mrs May has given them what they want, and they want ratification rather than more debate (Swift, 2018d).

Juncker appeared to be on top form, calling Mrs May 'nebulous' and when she challenged him over this slur, he backtracked rapidly, and claimed that he had said that it was the British position – not hers – that was 'nebulous' (Wright and Waterfield, 2018:6). As usual, Juncker was being evasive and mendacious – the UK's position has been clear from the start: we want to replace our current EU liabilities with one free trade agreement – nothing more, nothing less – 'Mr Toad of Brussels' did not even have the backbone to stand his ground, and resorted to his old standby of lying. As he said in an interview in 2014, if: "…things become serious we have to lie. The same applies to economic and monetary policy in the Union, I am very serious about it" (Pop, 2014). Not only is Juncker a self-confessed liar, but he apparently feels that he has the power to molest women in public – pictures in The Daily Telegraph showed him greeting "…Pernilla Sjölin, the EU's deputy head of protocol, by ruffling her hair, before moving in to kiss a nervous-looking [female] aide in Brussels…" (Tominey, 2018: 8)

What is Brexit About?

The whole point of Brexit was (and still is) to regain control of our country. We do not want to be part of a Federal Europe, governed by unelected EUROcrats who are planning to draw us into an ever-closer political union through a 'United States' of Europe, with rapidly-diminishing powers of national governments. Some thirty years ago, the late Nicolas Ridley described the EU leaders as "…unelected reject politicians with no accountability to anybody, who are not responsible for raising taxes, just spending money…" He went on to point out that, whilst he was "…not against giving up sovereignty in principle…" he would not do so to the EU, as "You might as well give it to Adolf Hitler…" (Ridley, 1990:8).

For the privilege of regaining control of our borders, foreign trade, education system, farming and fisheries, legal system, military commitments, and diplomatic representation throughout the world, we are prepared to pay around £40 billion. There are many, such as myself, who question whether this is indeed a price worth paying; however, on balance I would argue that it is, but only providing we achieve a clean break with the EU. Why Juncker should find such a position 'nebulous' is difficult to fathom, unless, of course, we examine the real reasons for the EU's opposition – the fear of Brexit 'contagion' and loss of UK's financial input – this is why Juncker and his fellow-travellers are worried, as a new relationship with the EU based on trade alone would eventually lead to the collapse of the EU. As the French Finance Minister, recently observed: "Any decision that would give European citizens the feeling you can exit the EU and keep all the advantages would be suicidal and we won't make that decision"(Horobin, 2018).

The EUROcrats are concerned with maintaining the status quo, and in so doing, retaining their highly-paid, high status positions of power. For them, nothing else matters. Interestingly, recent developments would appear to confirm the increasing fragility of the EU: with Austrian MEP Harald Vilimsky comparing it to "…an organism that is failing…" (Smith, 2018), and a report from the Centre for Economics and Business Research, which predicted that 'internal contradictions' would force the eurozone to 'integrate economically' or 'risk breaking up' (Mackie, 2019).What most of Europe wants is not stifling socialism and centralised control, but free trade. In fact, the only way in which the EU can possibly be saved is to revert to being a non-political free trade bloc, solely focused on issues of free trade, and to halt this creeping federalism and centralised state control of everything – much beloved of the (unelected) socialist politicians who currently control the EU; had this happened before now, it is highly likely that the UK would never have voted to leave.

You cannot reason with people who will not listen

The problem for Mrs May, however, is two-fold. Firstly, she is trying to 'reason' with the likes of Juncker, Barnier, and Verhofstadt. A 'reasonable' approach to negotiations only works if one is reasoning with reasonable people - something which the aforementioned trio are patently not. As Barnier told a US news channel in June 2018:

"What is sometimes hard for the British to understand is that we don't want to negotiate, we don't want to compromise…" (Rayner, 2018:4).

And this despite the fact that Article 50 specifically states that both sides shall have a two-year period of negotiations! Mrs. May should not debase herself or this great country of ours any further by trying to appeal to their sense of 'fairness' or natural justice.

Secondly, Mrs. May has been her own worst enemy in many respects - from her ability to snatch an effective defeat from the jaws of a potential victory (during the 2017 General Election), and more recently this political self-destruction has been writ large in her interference in the Brexit negotiations. However, as I have previously speculated this is not surprising if one assumes that her intention (as a 'remain' voter) was never to leave in the first place, or at the very least we can surmise that she was never enthusiastic about Brexit, and secretly hoped that it would fail. As I suggested earlier this year "…the Brexit process appears to have been thwarted at every stage by a combination of treachery from within the UK establishment, and duplicitous dogmatics from the EU; both parties in this unholy alliance being anxious that the UK does not leave, as they have vested interests in our remaining" (Swift, 2018a). Her behaviour has been suspiciously slow, taking her some nine months to trigger Article 50 – something that she should have done in her first week as Prime Minister. She has managed to wear out two Brexit secretaries through her interference: since their resignations, both have made it clear that it was her intransigence that contributed to the 'long and winding road' of protracted negotiations, which ultimately led to their resignations. For example, it was reported that the first Brexit Secretary (David Davis), had warned her that her plan would "…be voted down by MPs because it would relegate the UK to the status of a subordinate 'rule-taker" " (Mackie, 2018). Raab ended his resignation letter with the telling sentence: "Above all, I cannot reconcile the terms of the proposed deal with the promises we made to the country in our manifesto at the last election. This is, at its heart, a matter of public trust."(Crerar and Weaver, 2018).

This being the case, we can expect one of two outcomes that will suit the EU: (1) the UK Parliament accepts May's 'dodgy document', or (2) the document is rejected, and the 'remoaners' (aided by the increasingly vociferous EU Fifth Column of people such as Tony Blair and Peter Mandleson) succeed in getting a second referendum. If we suppose the latter outcome, then the anti-democratic 'remainers' would have to work even harder with Brussels to ensure that the 'correct' outcome is achieved next time! What is clear is that the EU is 'running scared', and has pulled out all the stops to ensure that the outcome of the last two years is beneficial to them and detrimental to us – requirements encapsulated in May's 'suicide note'. The idea of both sides benefiting has not, apparently occurred to them.

Media reports seem to suggest that the public is generally fed up with Brexit (including some of those who voted to leave) and there is a growing desire (from both leave and remain voters) to simply end the process – in whatever way possible. This, I suggest, is what the closet 'remoaners' want: 'Oh, just end it… and sign' is the attitude that pervades much of the UK at present, and therefore, we are now atthe point of maximum danger. This is part of the 'remoaner's' tactics – the constant application of pressure, including the repetition of a monotonous mantra, and the offer of a lifeline to escape the constant pain. The last thing we need is a weary and disillusioned public agreeing to a second referendum, just to make Brexit go away. Calls for a second referendum should be judged according to who makes such calls: in the case of Peter Mandleson it is the height of hypocrisy to argue that the May proposal "…would rob Britain of its sovereignty in key respects …" (Mandleson, 2019:11) as he campaigned for 'remain'- so he presumably he would have preferred to remain fully tied to the EU, eventually giving up all UK sovereignty in order to become a vassal state of the USE (United States of Europe). Undoubtedly his support of a second referendum is based on his hope that we will vote 'correctly' (ie. 'remain') next time. There is a clear danger in this clever, if unsubtle, trap 'remainers' have set. Such enticements are undoubtedly of interest to the 'remainers', the UK Fifth Columnists whose pronouncements give renewed energy to Brussels, and theunelected EUROcrats who between them have more power than the European Parliament.

The danger is that ideas of a second referendum, or being allowed back into the EU having learned our lesson, is that they appeal to those who were unsure as to how to vote in 2016, and due to the protracted negotiations, the constant barrage of disinformation and lies from the media, such people would probably vote 'remain' if offered a second referendum. This is not how democracy works, but as the EU is not a true democracy it is unsurprising that they are trying every trick in the book to make us stay. It is interesting to note that, when compared with the last four General Elections (2017, 2015, 2010, and 2005), 'leave' obtained a larger percentage of the vote (51.9%), as compared to the 42.34%, 36.8%, 36.1%, and 35.2% respectively of votes that put the winning party in power. And the leave vote was attained from a higher turnout of the electorate: 72%, compared with 68.7%, 66.2%, 65.1%, and 61.4% respectively (Swift, 2018a). No, the decision has been made – the government must now carry out the democratically-expressed wishes of the people. If it does not do so, the Conservatives will be out of power for at least a generation, and very few will ever trust politicians (of any party) ever again. This would be likely to benefit political extremists and their small parties, and lead to the fragmentation of traditional parties – leading to the UK being governed by unstable coalitions of single issue groups. Is this the legacy that May, Corbyn, and Cable wish to leave to our grandchildren?

As part of the tactics designed to make us throw in the towel, we have the latest 'cunning plan' by the EU in which the ECJ has (un-prompted, of course!) agreed that we could withdraw our intention to leave, and this could not be challenged by any member state of the EU. Furthermore, we have apparently been promised that if we decide to return (sheepishly) to the fold, it will not be held against us, and our membership will be reinstated on exactly the same terms as when we decided to leave (Carrell, 2018). The only response must be that given by Margaret Thatcher: 'No. No. No.' For nearly two years now, Barnier has been waving the stick; suddenly when it is looking as if a 'no agreement' outcome might be likely (something the EU fears above all else), he produces the ECJ carrot! This just shows how desperate Brussels has become, and that now is definitely NOT the moment to vote for May's deal – which would bind us to the EU for ever – but to get tough. As I have pointed out on numerous occasions, one cannot negotiate with the EU, as they still have no intention of letting us leave on mutually beneficial and amicable terms. Barnier tried to blame everyone but the EU, saying that: "…it is the decision of the British to leave the union that has created the problem. No one else. Nothing else…" (Rayner, 2018: 4) – oblivious to the fact that it was EU policies invented by people such as himself with vested interests in maintaining the status quo, that led us to want a referendum in the first place, and then to vote leave!

The Future?

Nor will the drama be concluded once we leave, as there is still the question of our future trading relationships with the EU – another two years of protracted abuse, humiliation, and EUROspeak, designed to cripple us financially, economically, and politically. Once the EU is satisfied that it has inflicted sufficient damage on the UK's international reputation, economy, political, and trading relations, we will be allowed to leave – but only under those conditions. And this assumes that the EU will stick to its word, and do its upmost to reach a fair agreement within the two year period. Anyone who has studied the EU tactics thus far, must be aware that there is very little likelihood that the EU will approach further negotiations (on trading relationships) with any sense of honour or fairness. Indeed, rumours are already circulating in Brussels that, once we have left (on 29th March, 2019), the new EU negating team to cover this two year period, is likely to be led by Martin Selmayr – the current European Commission's Secretary General. Selmayr has an even more anti-UK attitude than Barnier, and is on record as having described Brexit as 'stupid' (Rothwell, 2018:2). We can, therefore, look forward to yet more false attempts to 'negotiate' with us, more insults, humiliation, and arrogance. Why should these 'reject politicians' bother to take trade relationships seriously when we have left, when, as far as they are concerned the damage has already been done? Which UK politician would seriously trust the EU to negotiate in good faith – let alone keep to any terms agreed as a consequence of negotiations?

In addition to being 'ethically challenged' some members of the EU team apparently feel that people in their positions have a right to mock the national feelings and loyalties of others. In his Twitter feed of 23rd December, 2017, Verhofstadt, openly attempted to make fun of the UK desire to return to the old blue passport. Immigration Minister Brandon Lewis said: "Leaving the EU gives us a unique opportunity to restore our national identity and forge a new path for ourselves in the world", whilst Andrew Rosindell MP, called it a "…great Christmas present for those who care about our national identity" (Nair, 2017). Apparently national identity is of little import to people such as Vefhofstadt, who tweeted: "If we had known in advance that blue was so important to the UK, we could simply have replaced our passports by this one." This was accompanied by a photograph of 'mocked –up' EU passports all coloured blue: ironically, his mock-ups were not even the correct shade of blue! In addition to his boorish manners, lack of attention to detail, and immature sense of humour, Verhofstadt is insensitive and his arrogant and abrupt manner have contributed significantly to the growing level of ill-feeling between the UK and the EU negotiating team.

My Way or No Brexit

Perhaps this Belgian bully should be reminded that were it not for the Allied Armies (and the British and Canadians in particular), his country might still be under Nazi occupation, and that he would have no passport at all – European burgundy or otherwise!

It is unbelievable that Mrs May's latest attempt at political suicide apparently involved her threatening her MPs with 'her way' or 'no Brexit.' Such threats, as I am sure she will eventually find out, have a nasty habit of backfiring; all she has done is to polarise opinion within her own party, and to alienate the DUP – upon whose support she relies in order to command a working majority in the House. A key objection to her latest tactic is quite simply that she is wrong. She is guilty of uttering what Churchill - in an attempt to avoid calling MPs 'liars' - famously described as a 'terminological inexactitude'. Or possibly she could be accused of having been 'economical with the truth.' As she must know full well, it is not a binary choice between her 'scrap of paper' (Swift, 2018b), and no Brexit; her logic being that Brussels will not accept any further versions, or give more 'concessions,' so we are left with no choice. Wrong! There is in fact a third choice: leave on 29th March with no agreement, and take with us our £40 billion that the EU insisted of wresting from us before the real 'negotiations' began. As I (and countless others before) have argued, we had a referendum on whether to stay or leave the EU, and as the majority voted 'leave' – then leave we shall, on 29th March, 2019. A recent poll of Conservative Party members showed that 57% support a 'no deal' Brexit, whilst just 23% approve her deal (Rayner, 2019:1)

"No deal is better than a bad deal"

If we were to leave without a deal (and it was Mrs May who repeatedly said that 'no deal is better than a bad deal'), then the siren voices warning against 'falling off cliff edges', and 'crashing out' of the EU, are suggesting that the UK would become a sort of third world country, shunned by international investors, isolated by international traders, ostracised by the educational and scientific elite of the world, and forced to develop international trading relations according to the guidelines laid down by the WTO – this, so their logic goes, would be disastrous for the UK economy for many years into the future. Short of predicting (à la Chicken Licken) that the sky would fall in, the doomsday scenarios of 'Project fear' (part three) are terrifying. We will have queues of lorries waiting for days on either side of the Channel, there will be food shortages, and shortages of essential medicines; the Army will have to be called in deal with growing riots and civil disobedience, and plagues of locusts followed by the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse will visit us.

As part of her campaign to get the public to put pressure on their MP to vote for her deal, May is to unleash a new disinformation campaign designed to play on public sensibilities. According to The Daily Telegraph: "From Tuesday, people planning to travel to the EU will be warned that they may need to renew passports…" (Mikhailova, 2019:9); Stephen Barclay (the latest Brexit Secretary) was also on message, saying that: "People didn't vote for the disruption and the uncertainty of no deal. We've agreed a deal with the EU which allows the UK to leave in good order and we now want to see this deal passed by Parliament" (Mikhailova, 2019:9). Of course nobody voted for disruption! Apart from making Barclay sound like Phillip Hammond, the crass idiocy of such a statement just shows how out of touch he is with the people who voted to leave. One has to ask whether he has learned nothing over the last three years? The last time such threats were made was as part of 'Project Fear (part one)' and this proved counter-productive. Since then the likes of Phillip Hammond have tried 'Project Fear (part two)', and now it looks as if we are to be treated to 'Project Fear (part three) – for which I definitely did not vote!

As I have argued on a number of occasions leaving without a managed deal has a number of advantages, and rather than being regarded as the worst outcome should, in fact, be celebrated as the best. There are a number of reasons for this:

1) United States of Europe

We must leave, as to remain would see the UK eventually subsumed into the planned 'United States of Europe' (USE) – something that is rarely talked about, yet is of major concern to those people who value the sovereignty of the UK, and the way of life that our Parliamentary democracy brings. The concern of many is that in becoming subsumed within a Federal Europe, the UK would cease to exist as an independent nation, and long-held freedoms (for which millions have fought over the years) would disappear. Instead of a Parliament in London – which we could arguably get rid of every four years – we would be ruled by a series of unelected 'reject' politicians in Brussels, as it is the European Commission, not the European Parliament, that is the true decision-making body in the EU. If this is what the EUROcrats intend, then why not be open about it, and put it to a popular vote? If the majority were to opt for this Federal system, then so be it.1 Ever since the EU was formed (as the European Coal & Steel Community in 1952), a Federal State has been the long-term goal of European politicians. For example, French politician Jean Monnet (probably the single-most influential politician in the early years of the EU), in a speech to the National Press Club in Washington DC in April 1952 said: "The establishment of the European Coal and Steel Community will be the foundations of a community of federal structure governed by common institutions, applying common rules, ensuring the same rights and imposing all the same obligations" (AEI, 1952:3)2 This is the major reason why we cannot afford to remain in the EU.

2) The 'Reparations' bill

If we were to leave without a deal, we would no longer have to pay £40 billion in reparations to the EU. This so-called 'divorce settlement' is an outrageous amount to ask us to pay, and could be put to much better use in supporting the NHS, strengthening our woefully inadequate Armed Forces, and helping research new export markets for British industry. Furthermore, rather than viewing Brexit as the UK 'leaving a club', Brussels has decided that it should be viewed as a divorce, and consequently there are a number of financial obligations to which we must adhere – a sort of 'child maintenance' for want of a better term. That is fair enough providing that they also accept that, as in most divorce settlements, 'household' assets are divided between the splitting couple. As far as can be ascertained, we are not receiving any of the communally – purchased assets currently held by the EU: the thousands of bottles of vintage wine that are kept in EU cellars, the IT and telephonic equipment, stationery, vehicles, office furniture, expensive art work that adorns the walls of the many EU offices – both in Brussels and Strasbourg – to name but a few. The government has yet to provide a detailed list of what we are receiving as our share of this EU infrastructure. I challenge the Prime minister to produce just such a list, but am not holding my breath for a response!

3) Control of Our Borders

We would, once more, have control over our borders, and not be subject to interference from Brussels. There is much written about this 'sacred freedoms' of the EU – generally along the lines that it is the right of every EU citizen to live and work wherever these choose. However, apart from such dogmatic statements, there would appear to be little logical reasoning behind this 'freedom' – until, that is, one examines the numbers more closely. The UK point of view is relatively simple: sovereign states should be the ultimate arbiter of who comes to live and/or work in their territory, and under what conditions – such as long/short-term residency and right to employment and state benefits. Philip Hammond made the options clear in 2014, when he said that "…unfettered control of our own borders to do what we like…" is incompatible with membership of the European Union (Dominiczak, 2014:1). The issue of immigration is highly-charged, yet in the final analysis, it must be examined as it represents a major reason why many voted to leave the EU (Swift, 2018c:13). To understand the insistence of the EU in freedom of movement, one only has to examine the youth unemployment figures for various EU countries:

Youth unemployment is a particularly sensitive area
as large numbers of unemployed, disillusioned (and possibly resentful) people
can lead to political and economic instability for a government – especially
one that is obliged to pay unemployment benefit to those without work: then
this places a tremendous economic burden on the government responsible, to say
nothing of the social consequences. On the positive side, however, the young
are more likely to move out of their country to seek employment elsewhere – they
are more mobile, have fewer family ties, and are more likely to have acquired
(or be able to acquire) a second language. Where would they go to seek work?
Wherever they can easily access (ie no work permit required), and where levels
of unemployment are comparatively low – meaning that competition for jobs is
far less: compare, for example, the levels of youth unemployment in Greece with
the UK. If young people can be encouraged to seek employment abroad, they are
no longer the responsibility of their respective governments, which can pass on
all socio-economic responsibilities to the host government. At the moment,
unemployment rates are so high in Greece, Spain, and Italy, as to present a
serious problem of social stability for the Greek, Spanish, and Italian
governments, respectively. Solution: encourage these people to seek work abroad
– and for that to be successful, freedom of movement is required. It is for
this reason that the EU is so insistent on the freedom of movement of labour,
and this attitude is (understandably) strongly supported by the governments of
Greece, Spain, and Italy.

4)
Legal Affairs
We would take control of our legal system, and not
be subject to interference from Brussels.

5)
Fishing and Farming
Similarly, we would regain control of our fishing
grounds, and could prevent non-UK vessels fishing within our territorial waters.
Also, we would be free from EU agricultural quotas, and be free to source
necessary food supplies from less expensive markets, such as New Zealand.

6) Ireland and Gibraltar
We would be able to deal with two other issues that
the EU has used to successfully make so-called 'negotiations' more difficult
than they need be: the question of a 'hard' border between the UK (Northern
Ireland) the Republic of Eire, and a similar border between the British Overseas
Territory of Gibraltar and Spain. Irish friends of mine point out that the
border between north and south is crossed hundreds of times in both ways during
the course of a week. I am also informed that the people of Ireland (both North
and South of the border), have no wish to see the re-introduction of a 'hard'
border; nor, would it seem, do the UK or Irish governments. This being the
case, the solution is surely simple: in the event of a 'no deal' scenario, if the
EU wishes to impose a 'hard' border between the two countries, then it should
pay for and construct such a border, and once constructed, it should further be
their responsibility to ensure that any such checkpoints are constantly manned.
I predict that this would never happen, as neither the UK nor the Irish
governments would allow foreign troops or police onto their sovereign
territory. It would serve the EUROcrats well to examine the history of Ireland!
6)
International Trade
We would be allowed to trade with whichever country
wished to trade with us on bi-lateral mutually-beneficial terms. Although
trading on WTO terms is portrayed by many (usually 'remainers') as being an
impossible nightmare, they choose to ignore the fact that most of the world's
trade is conducted under such agreements: a customs union is very much the
exception rather than the rule. There is not the space here to go into a
detailed analysis of what exactly WTO trading regulations would mean for UK
exporters and importers; these will be analysed in greater depth in another paper.
In
conclusion, leaving without a deal on 29th Marc 2019 would ensure
that we actually do carry out the wishes of the majority who voted to leave the
EU, in the national Referendum in June 2016.

About the author

Dr Jonathan Swift is a Senior Lecturer in International Business & Marketing at Salford Business School, the University of Salford, Manchester. He teaches on the Postgraduate programmes at the Business School, is the Programme Leader for the MSC in International Business, and leads the overseas residential study week. He has taught at the Manchester Business School, on the Executive MBA programme, and has been involved in socio-linguistic pre-departure training for personnel from major companies who were to go to Latin America to take up positions there. He has worked closely with a variety of industries. Jonathan has written a number of books: the two most recent being Brexit KBO (2018) published by Cambridge Academic, Cambridge, and Understanding Business in the Global Economy: A Multi-Level Relationship Approach (2017) Macmillan Publishers, London. He has lived and worked in a number of countries: Brazil, Colombia, Italy, and Mexico, and speaks Spanish.